Forthcoming in Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institution

Forthcoming in Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institution The Institutionalization of Private Governance: How business and nonprofits agree on transnational rules Philipp Pattberg This article assesses the recent trend of cooperation among antagonistic private actors that results in the creation and implementation of issue-specific transnational norms and rules and the subsequent shift from public to private forms of governance. Many political scientists agree that authority also exists outside of formal political structures. Private actors increasingly begin to make their own rules and standards that acquire authority outside the international system. This observation is often referred to as private transnational governance as opposed to public or international governance. Although the concept of private governance gains prominence in academic debates, it is neither clear how private governance on the global scale is constructed and maintained nor what specific or general conditions are necessary for private institutions to emerge. Different literatures highlight different explanatory factors ranging from macro-systemic transformations to transaction cost approaches and the importance of knowledge and ideas. Based on the review of common theoretical propositions, this article develops an integrated model along which the necessary conditions for the emergence of private institutions can be assessed and understood. As most research has hitherto focused on institutionalized cooperation between business actors (self-regulation) this article takes a closer look at those transnational systems of rule that result out of the enhanced cooperation between profit and non-profit actors (co-regulation). Empirical examples come from the field of forest certification (FSC) and corporate environmental reporting (CERES). Achieving a better understanding of these complex mechanisms will not only improve our theoretical concepts of global governance but also contribute to the much-needed institution building for sustainable development. 1. Introduction The privatization of global politics is a much-debated issue in contemporary academic discourse (Brühl; Cashore; Clapp; Savas). But whereas the provision of services by private actors such as military companies or bond-rating agencies, and the implementation and monitoring of international agreements have already been at the center of debate for a while, the parallel development of cooperative rule-making by private actors, both from the profit and nonprofit camp, has not received comparable attention. As far as rules and norms are concerned, studies in International Relations (IR) in general and global (environmental) politics in particular have primarily focused on international regimes and intergovernmental organizations that have been designed to address trans-boundary problems. Non-state actors figure prominently on the research agenda of political scientists for more than three decades and scholars have studied in detail their role and function in agenda-setting, lobbying governments, and implementing international

PHILIPP PATTBERG agreements (Arts; Keck and Sikkink; Raustiala; Rowlands; Weiss and Gordenker). However, still little is known about the institutionalization of governance by private, often antagonistic actors. Research has either focused on inter-firm cooperation as a source of private authority in the global political system (Cutler, Haufler, and Porter 1999a; Hall and Biersteker) or has addressed partnerships between different actors from all segments of society in general, including business, civil society, and governments (Austin; Hemmati; Willetts). As a result, the debate about non-state actors and their new roles in governance has been limited to public-private partnerships and global public policy networks (Börzel and Risse; Witte, Reinicke, and Benner). It has, to a large extent, neglected far reaching institutionalizations among private actors without the involvement of governments, government agencies or intergovernmental organizations. But it is precisely this development that poses new questions with respect to some fundamental political concepts such as public interest, authority, and legitimacy. The underlying assumption of this article is that the current process of private institutionalization among a wide variety of business and non-profit actors signifies more than a greening of industry based on rationalistic interest calculations. Instead, we witness the emergence of transnational organization, resulting from a variety of normand rule-systems on the global level, from reporting schemes to certification and environmental management standards, that exist primarily outside the international system. Consequently, the impact of private actors on world politics has changed as well. They have developed from being an intervening variable of the international system to establishing rules that exist mainly outside of it. Private authority is considered to be different from public authority, because the latter derives mainly from the possibility of coercion, whereas the former is based on persuasion. As a result, private authority most likely takes the form of market or moral authority. As Claire Cutler, Virginia Haufler and Tony Porter contend, [a]uthority involves a surrendering of individual judgment, an acceptance of its dictates based not on the merits of any particular pronouncement but on a belief in the rightness of the authority itself (1999b, 334). I argue that the conditions for private institutions to emerge can be assessed along two interconnected lines of argumentation, focusing on the macro-level of conditions, including global economic transformations and contextual factors on the international level, and the micro-level, including the specific structure of the problem as well as available organizational resources of actors involved. The two condition-levels are understood to form an integrated model of private institutional emergence. Therefore, it is possible to highlight the actual linkages between the conditions in a more process-oriented way than single-factor accounts usually display. The theoretical and analytical significance of this article derives from the basic questions it sets out to answer: first, how could we conceptualize the novel phenomenon of private governance in world politics? Second, how could we explain its exis- 2

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF PRIVATE GOVERNANCE tence? And third, given the rich literature on questions of institutional formation, which analytical model is most appropriate to do so? Consequently, the paper proceeds in three analytical steps. First, it analyses the shift from public to private governance and the corresponding institutionalization of cooperation between different private transnational actors. Second, it seeks to establish a common framework of analysis to understand the conditions of emergence of private institutions based on common propositions found in the literature on (private) regimes and private cooperation. Third, it introduces two empirical cases to further substantiate the theoretical claims made in the preceding part. The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) provides an illustrative example of transnational co-regulation in the forest sector. In contrast to the Sustainable Forest Initiative (SFI) or the Pan European Forest Certification (PEFC), which both have been influenced by industry and public actors and only recently are moving towards more organizational independence, the FSC constitutes a cooperative effort of profit and non-profit actors from its very beginning. The Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies (CERES), the second case presented in this article, displays a different organizational form of regulation. Here the rules do not govern a specific issue area but are targeted towards the everyday operations of companies in general. Achieving a better understanding of private rule-making as one of the emerging phenomena in global politics will not only broaden our theoretical understanding of global governance but also contribute to the much-needed institution building for effective sustainable development. 2. From Public to Private Governance: The Institutionalization of Private Regulation The last decade of the 20 th century has been called an era of partnership (Murphy). Innovative forms of collaboration can be observed in a range of different organizational settings and issue areas. Firms may engage in strategic alliances with suppliers and competitors, develop informal industry norms and practices or even formal private regimes, regulating the behavior of a wide range of business actors in sectors ranging from insurance to minerals and mining (Cutler, Haufler, and Porter 1999a). International organizations seek the assistance of corporations to implement universal social and environmental norms (UN Global Compact), or engage in partnership with business actors and NGOs to introduce a globally applicable scheme for sustainable corporate reporting (Global Reporting Initiative, GRI). Civil society representatives on their term take part in negotiations involving corporations, governments, and international organizations with the view to establish a sustainable framework for the planning and operation of large-scale dams (World Commission on Dams, WCD). These examples indicate at least three substantive shifts within global politics. First, the locus of authoritative problem solving does not rest with governments and their interna- 3

PHILIPP PATTBERG tional organizations alone. Authority is indeed relocated in many different settings, involving public-private as well as purely private actor-constellations. Second, the predominantly confrontational relation between companies, governments, and civil society has been complemented by partnership as one possible mode of interaction. 1 And third, cooperation is getting more and more institutionalized, resulting in social practices that effectively govern specific issue areas. The term private governance encapsulates these important shifts within one conceptual framework. It emphasizes the role of private actors, both profit and non-profit, in the establishment and maintenance of issue-specific global norms and rules in contrast to either private agenda-setting and lobbying or international rule-making. Therefore, private governance could be understood as a functional equivalent to public forms of governance involving states and intergovernmental institutions. The attempt to develop a concept to capture empirical phenomena of transnational global politics in general and private institutionalism in particular is grounded on theoretical considerations often referred to as global governance debate or even global governance theory (Hewson and Sinclair). Global governance is generally believed to encompass different systems of rule on different levels of human activity as an organizing social principle beyond hierarchical steering and the sovereign authority of nation-states. As James Rosenau notes, global governance is the sum of myriad literally millions of control mechanisms driven by different histories, goals, structures, and processes (1997, 27). The phenomenon therefore includes the activities of governments, but it also includes the many channels through which commands flow in the form of goals framed, directives issued, and policies pursued (Rosenau 1995, 14). One of these possible channels is the realm of private governance. A closer look at this phenomenon reveals that private governance is constituted of at least three analytical dimensions 2 : first, the procedural dimension of governance, emphasizing the activities of private transnational actors; second, the structural dimension of governance, highlighting the distinct architecture of a governance arrangement, including norms and rules, networks and actor-constellations as well as formal or informal links to other areas of governance; and third, the functional dimension of governance, focusing on the material and ideational outcome of a private governance arrangement as a functional equivalent to forms of national or international public governance. This three-dimensional perspective on private governance is reflected in Robert Faulkner s assumption that private governance emerges at the global level where the interactions among private actors [ ] give rise to institutional arrangements that structure and direct actors behavior in an issue-specific area (2003, 72-73). Consequently, the recent trend of private governance goes beyond the phenomenon of privatization of world politics (Brühl, Debiel, Hamm, Hummel, Martens), which, to a large extent, has been analyzed as service-provision and rule-implementation by private actors. In addition, private governance includes new actor-constellations and uncommon alliances 4

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF PRIVATE GOVERNANCE between a wide range of actors that go beyond coordination or cooperation. Following Robert Keohane, cooperation can be defined as adjustments of behaviour towards mutual goals that contain some degree of obligation for all participants and thus extend cooperation into the future (1984). In contrast, governance.. emerges out of a context of interaction that is institutionalized and of more permanent nature. In a system of governance, individual actors do not constantly decide to be bound by the institutional norms based on a calculation of their interest, but adjust their behavior out of recognition of the legitimacy of the governance system (Falkner, 73). Therefore, cooperation and forms of private governance also differ according to the authority involved in a specific actor-constellation: Cooperation that derives primarily from rational calculation of the direct payoff from adjusting one s behavior in a particular strategic situation may not involve authority. Authority requires a basis in trust rather than calculation of immediate benefit, and therefore cooperation must involve the development of habits, norms, rules, and shared expectations cooperation must be institutionalized (Cutler, Haufler, and Porter 1999b, 334-335). The emerging private institutions 3 that result out of enhanced cooperation between antagonistic private actors can be understood as social practices consisting of easily recognized roles coupled with clusters of rules or conventions governing relations among the occupants of these roles (Young, 32). From a functional perspective, private institutions govern a distinct issue area through the development and subsequent implementation of regulations directed at the behavior of various actors. Therefore, they can be qualified as private regulative institutions. The resulting regulative rules 4 take different forms, ranging from management standards to codes of conduct and detailed global certification schemes. But regulative rules in the field of environmental politics not only contain prescriptions of behavior directed towards the environment. They also define who accounts for compliance with management standards, codes of conduct or labels, and under what rules. Ideal types range from first-party certification, wherein organizations generate rules internally and report conformance themselves, to second-party certification, wherein firms and organizations work together to generate rules and report compliance, and third-party certification, wherein independent bodies set the standards and others report conformance. Next to setting detailed regulative rules, private institutions are generally believed to fulfill additional functions within the context of private governance (Pattberg). By providing a forum for deliberation and conflict resolution, by producing and disseminating valuable knowledge and information, by providing opportunities for organizational learning, and by securing independent verification of norm-compliance, private institutions effectively provide an institutionalized response to intertwined environmental, social, and economic problems. It is precisely through these distinct functions that private institutions exercise authority within a given issue area and beyond. These observations are in line with the assumption that private governance is a functional equivalent of international governance. Similar to re- 5

PHILIPP PATTBERG gimes established by states, private institutions might provide collective goods, reduce transaction costs, and decrease uncertainty (Keohane). In sum, private regulative institutions play an important role in shaping the realm of private environmental governance in issue areas ranging from biodiversity conservation, to forest politics and climate change. Next to private forms of coordination and rule-implementation, the phenomenon of rule-making by private actors gains prominence among both IR and environmental policy scholars. But research on these private regimes (Haufler) has almost exclusively focused on institutionalizations among firms and business associations, neglecting far-reaching developments of institutionalization between former adversaries such as environmental and social NGOs, investors, transnational corporations, and a variety of local or regional business actors. The corresponding question is why, how, and under what conditions private actors from different segments of transnational society, following different organizational and functional logics, engage in close cooperation that produces transnational regulation beyond the international political system. 3. Explaining the Emergence of Private Institutions in Global Governance: Reviewing Common Propositions This section discusses three theoretical literatures that can all be related to the problem of private institutionalization, but represent three different theoretical backgrounds: first, the concept of private inter-firm regimes that is building on general regime literature; second, the literature on partnership and collaboration between different actors on the global level in general, and third, the debate about macro-transformation in the context of globalization. Regime literature is interested, among other questions, in explaining the formation of normative institutions that are based on a persistent and connected set of rules (Mayer, Rittberger, and Zürn, 393). The object of regime analysis is voluntarily agreed-upon, issuearea specific normative institutions created by states and other international actors, which are studied as the mainstay of establishing intentional social order by self-regulation in international relations (Mayer, Rittberger, and Zürn 1993, ibid.). Therefore, as Haufler argues, neither the common definition of regime nor the fundamental assumptions made about regimes suggest that there can be no such thing as a purely private regime (1993, 96). Consequently, the regime literature is a valuable starting point for theorizing about the possible causes and conditions of the emergence of private regulatory institutions. The puzzle of regime formation has been explored basically along three lines of argumentation (Hasenclever, Mayer, and Rittberger) that are not mutually exclusive but rather work in tandem. Power-based explanations highlight the importance of power resources, both in monetary and non-monetary terms, in bringing about cooperation. The basic premise is that institutions are structured by and reflect the distribution of power within a given social 6

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF PRIVATE GOVERNANCE system, be it international and public or transnational and private. Interest-based explanations focus on the interactions of self-interested parties coordinating their behavior to reap joint gains. The basic premise is that in order to reach cooperation there must be a zone of agreement or contract, a possible realm of joint gains for all the participants. The third line of argumentation is labeled knowledge-based and revolves around the importance of ideas, arguments and social identities. The basic premise holds that the different interest determining a specific zone of agreement are not exogenously given, but subject of cognitive processes and developments such as scientific information and convergence or general framing of issues. Recent case studies on private authority have revealed based on the classic regime literature three possible explanations for the emergence of private inter-firm cooperation. Contextual factors and systemic changes are identified to have a major influence on private institutionalization. Haufler (2000, 122) for example argues that the globalization of economic activities has resulted in a mis-match between markets and politics in terms of governance. Consequently, the demand for rules to govern commerce has given rise to a variety of sources of supply, and one of the most significant [ ] is the private sector itself (Haufler 2000, 121). But growing private institutionalization of rule-making can not only been explained in terms of macro-systemic transformations, discernible in the recurrent failure of governments worldwide to cope with trans-boundary problems, but also by applying rationalistic approaches that focus on utility-maximizing actors as the fundamental heuristic units. Efficiency gains approaches analyze cooperation and subsequent institutionalization in terms of a possible reduction of transaction costs (Cutler, Haufler, and Porter 1999b, 338). In this view, inter-firm regimes may reduce costs associated with information and uncertainty, costs related to negotiations and consensus-seeking, and costs related to the enforcement of regulations. 5 A second type of rationalistic explanation centers on the factor of power. From this perspective, institutions are predominantly established because they enhance the capacity of some actors to exercise power over others in a given field of competition. These considerations seem to substantiate the propositions discussed under the framework of international regimes. But although rationalistic and contextual explanations seem to have some merits in the case of private institutions, even leading scholars of the field suggest that it is difficult to disentangle them in practice (Cutler, Haufler, and Porter 1999b). Therefore, an integrated approach to the emergence of private institutions may prove superior to single-factor accounts of formation (Efinger, Mayer, and Schwarzer, 272-274). What can be learned from the general regime literature and the more specific debate about private inter-firm regimes for our puzzle of emerging private regulative institutions? From a single-factor perspective, we can assume distinct empirical observations to substantiate the individual propositions. For power-based assumptions to be true we would expect to find strong leaders in each network, influencing the outcome of the negotiations to their own benefit, or at least a group of actors having considerably more power than others in shaping 7

PHILIPP PATTBERG the outcome of the cooperation, in most cases the rules governing their own behavior. For the interest-based and efficiency gains approach to prove valid one would expect to observe reduced transaction costs, better positions in the market, and reputation gains. These objectives should be identified by the partnering organizations prior to the establishment of the institution and not just occur as the unintended result of cooperation. Furthermore, a possible zone of agreement should be imaginable for all the participants of the arrangement prior to the actual institutionalization. For contextual factors to be decisive, one would assume to find evidence for large-scale transformation or eruptive events within a given policy-field. Observations could include a new influential discourse, absence or inadequacy of governmental and intergovernmental regulation, the emergence of new scientific knowledge or an environmental catastrophe. We should keep in mind that although regime theory provides us with a range of possible propositions, a simple application of findings from either the international regimes literature or the inter-firm and business regimes perspective to the case of private regulatory institutions seems to be at least problematic. A second approach to the question of private institutionalization can be found in the growing literature on partnership politics (Eisler, 565). Next to studies on public-private partnerships and inter-organizational collaboration, researchers started to address business- NGO partnerships in the mid-1990s. This research strategy is action-orientated, but nevertheless provides useful insights into the specific types and rationales of business-ngo partnerships (Heap; Long and Arnold; Murphy and Bendell). The existing policy-orientated studies on partnerships identify four preconditions for business actors and NGOs to engage in cooperation. First, perceived or actual decline in the effectiveness of state regulation with regards to the enforcement of environmental and social regulation, both on the national and international level. Second, acknowledgement on part of the NGOs that large transnational corporations are both cause and possible solution of global problems. Third, impact of new NGO campaigning strategies that focus on corporate brand reputation and thus threaten their market position. And fourth, the recognition on part of the companies that NGOs have acquired power and legitimacy as agents of social change, thus presenting themselves as potential partners for solving pressing business problems. An alternative approach that falls into the category of partnership approaches is interorganizational collaboration. Barbara Gray defines collaboration as a process through which parties who see different aspects of a problem can constructively explore their differences and search for solutions that go beyond their own limited vision of what is possible (Gray, 5). Collaboration involves a dynamic process of joint decision-making among the key stakeholders of a given problem field. Central characteristics of this process are the interdependence of the actors, the joint ownership of decisions, and the resulting collective responsibility for the future of the collaboration. The emergence of the collaborative process that gives rise to a new negotiated order among the key stakeholders is contingent on specific attributes of 8

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF PRIVATE GOVERNANCE the problems to be addressed, for example interdependence of stakeholders, unequal distribution of resources, and problem-complexity. At the same time, stakeholders have different levels of expertise and access to information; furthermore, differing perspectives on the problem lead to adversarial relationships among stakeholders. Consequently, unilateral approaches to deal with the problem often produce sub-optimal outcomes (Gray, 10). In sum, the research on partnership approaches highlights the importance of two sets of conditions. First, macro-trends such as globalization, resulting in the perceived or actual decline of state-capability to regulate complex problems, growing impact of business actors on the natural environment, and the corresponding new role of civil society. Second, conditions that depend on the specific case and actors in question such as problem-characteristics and organizational resources. The third broad theoretical approach considered here focuses on the global political economy as an explanatory factor for large-scale transformations. The debate about globalization and the changing role of the nation-state in addressing trans-boundary problems provides a vantage point for the discussion of the possible causes for the emergence of private governance. Falkner (2003, 74) identifies three claims that address the relation between globalization and the rise of private forms of global governance. The first claim stresses the relationship between globalization and the perceived decline of the nation-state system. From this perspective, private governance is an indicator for a long-term shift in the locus of authority, especially within the realm of the global economy. Private actors have become the real players in issue areas ranging from financial stability and foreign investment (e.g. bond-rating agencies) to industrial standard-setting (e.g. International Organization for Standardization, ISO). As a result, the powers of most states have declined still further, so that their authority over the people and their activities inside their territorial boundaries has weakened (Strange, xi). The second claim addresses the hypothetical link between the growth of civil society and the emergence of private governance. In this view, civil society pressure exerted on corporations, accompanied by far-reaching media-coverage, is seen as a main cause for the emergence of institutionalized responses to the growing demand for corporate social and environmental accountability (Wapner). The third claim is closely related to the work of Antonio Gramsci. In this view, novel relations between states, business actors, international organizations, and civil society institutions signify a shift from more traditional forms of politics to market-oriented, corporatesponsored regimes that clearly benefit corporate interests (Falkner, 75). The applicability of this concept to the realm of private governance stems from the particular importance of business and civil society as central categories within the framework of private institutionalism. Neo-Gramscian theory seems capable of explaining the current transformation of the economic arena, which is driven by a hegemonic bloc of business and society elites, resulting in a 9

PHILIPP PATTBERG new approach to regulation such as market-driven self-regulation. Within this institutional setting, a managerial elite from multinational corporations, transnational NGOs, academia, and governmental agencies comprises a transnational historical bloc, exercising leadership as a consequence of individual and collective human acts (Cox; Germain and Kenny, 6; Pijl). In this view, NGOs are not natural adversaries of business interests but play a dual role as arenas of cultural and ideological struggle, and also as key allies in securing hegemonic stability (Levy and Newell, 90). The aforementioned three broad theoretical approaches towards the phenomenon of private institutions in global governance - regime theory, partnership politics, and studies in global political economy - contain valuable propositions with regards to the emergence of private institutions. Four recurrent aspects seem to be important, although they receive different degrees of attention in the respective literatures: (1) macro-systemic transformations such as globalization or hegemonic reconfiguration as well as contextual factors on the macro-level; (2) problem-structure, characterized by interdependent interests as well as different levels of information and knowledge; (3) organizational resources that enable actors to reduce transaction costs or improve their strategic position; (4) ideas, knowledge, and information. For analytical purposes, these aspects can be grouped into two broad categories, one containing the micro-level conditions, the other those observable on the macro-level. Microlevel conditions contain the problem-structure and organizational resources because these are dependent on the specific issue area and the actors involved. Macro-level conditions relate to large-scale transformations in the structure of the international system as well as to the emergence and dissemination of ideas and knowledge. 4. Private Rules in Private Networks: Understanding the FSC and CERES The following section considers two empirical cases 6 in the light of the aforementioned theoretical propositions. After briefly discussing the institutional set-up and rules established, I turn to the enabling factors for institutionalization of private regulation involving companies and civil society organizations. I assess the conditions for institutionalization along the four recurrent themes identified in section four. The two case studies are based on expert interviews with staff members, board representatives, and a range of additional stakeholders as well as on written documentation and secondary sources. THE ENVIRONMENT AT RISK: THE COALITION FOR ENVIRONMENTALLY RESPONSIBLE ECONOMIES The Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies (CERES) started operating in 1989 with publishing the so called Valdez principles, utilizing the huge public outrage around 10

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF PRIVATE GOVERNANCE the Exxon Valdez oil spill, which occurred on March 24. A group of social responsible investors, mainly organized in the Social Investment Forum 7, and fifteen large environmental groups started discussing the possibility to use the power of investors (shareholder resolutions) against the power of the boardroom. The idea behind CERES is to engage companies in dialogue and work towards the subsequent endorsement of environmental principles 8 that establish a long-term corporate commitment to a continual progress in environmental performance. The ten-point code of corporate environmental conduct establishes an environmental ethic with criteria by which investors and others can assess the environmental performance of companies (CERES 2002b, 31). Principle ten requires an annual self-evaluation by the endorsing company based on the CERES reporting form by which the required continual progress towards environmental responsibility can be measured. As a result, environmental improvements, lowered investment risks, and positive corporate performance go hand in hand. To date, more than 70 companies have endorsed the CERES principles, including the annual reporting commitment. Among the CERES endorsers are large multinational corporations such as American Airlines, Bank of America, Coca-Cola USA, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, and Sunoco, as well as small and medium-sized firms, including environmental front-runners such as The Body Shop International or Aveda Corporation. The second pillar CERES rests on is the CERES coalition, a network of around 90 organizations, including environmental advocacy groups, public interest and community groups as well as an array of investors, analysts, and financial advisors representing more than $300 billion in invested capital. A board of 21 distinguished individuals governs CERES. The day-to-day operations are supervised by an executive director and carried out by a staff of currently 16 people located in Boston, MA. Although endorsing companies are not directly represented on the CERES board, corporate representatives participate in various committees set up by the board to develop and implement programs and project and in this function regularly attend CERES board meetings. A further avenue of influence for corporations is the annual CERES conference drawing together almost all coalition members and endorsers to discuss the issue of corporate environmental commitment in a long-term perspective. As William Clay Ford, Chairman of the board of Ford Motor Company, noted, [t]he CERES annual conference is helping to establish not only the agenda of the next century, but also the relationships we will need to solve some very daunting issues (CERES 2001, 9). The regulatory dimension of CERES as an institution contains two related aspects: first, the principles, establishing a normative framework for companies to operate in; and second, a standardized format for corporate environmental reporting, prescribing the form and contend of public disclosure (CERES 1999a). Both aspects can be considered a major success. Many companies have published an environmental mission statement drawing on the original Valdez principles (Bavaria). To date, more than 2000 companies worldwide 11

PHILIPP PATTBERG regularly publish environmental reports. The CERES report form gained so much credibility that it provided the basis for the global sustainability reporting guidelines operated by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), a tripartite network of NGOs, corporations, and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). CERES not only provided substantial knowledge and information, but also served as the secretariat and organizational driver until the GRI became an independent organization in 2000. When institutional investors and representatives of major environmental organizations convened at Chapel Hill, North Carolina, in April 1989 to discuss ways to improve the environmental and social impacts of investments, a whole range of controversial issues waited to be solved. For social investors and their clients, the lack of information about the environmental performance of companies was a real risk for their business. Either information came from the companies themselves, displaying advanced public relations skills rather than substantial information, or from advocacy groups addressing their specific constituencies. Neither served the need of a growing social investment community. Little help came from governmental regulation at that time, because measures focused on specific substances, like in the case of the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) established in 1987, rather than on environmental performance in its entirety. NGOs on their part began to realize that conventional lobbying strategies aimed at governments were becoming less efficient, while at the same time business actors emerged as major threats to the environment. Especially the catastrophe of Bhopal in 1984 and the Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989 have brought corporate misbehavior to the forefront of public concern. As a result, companies, although reluctant in the beginning, started to look for credible ways to secure brand reputation and profits in the midst of a hostile public environment. In sum, interdependent stakeholders having vested interests in the problem, disproportional levels of expertise and information as well as different perspectives resulting in an adversarial relationship, characterized the problem-structure. After a couple more meetings among the original coalition members the negotiations led to the formulation and public announcement of the Valdez principles on September 7, 1989, resulting in considerable media-coverage and public attention. Already this early phase of negotiations showed an interesting feature. Debates were not based on positional negotiation and confrontational strategies, but on a common framework of reference from where future visions could develop (Bavaria). Two ideas, one practical, the other more visionary, served as influential institutional models. First, the system of standardized financial accounting that emerged in collaboration between public and private actors in the United States and is controlled and monitored by the Financial Accounting Board (FASB). The second idea that had a considerable impact on the coalition members ability to identify a common platform for action was to use shareholder petitions to challenge corporate behavior, as in the case of the Sullivan principles applied to US companies operating in South Africa under the Apartheid regime. The Sullivan principles 12

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF PRIVATE GOVERNANCE originated in 1977, when Reverend Leon Sullivan, a Baptist minister, issued his code of conduct in an attempt to end discrimination against Black workers in South Africa oppressed by the nation s policy of apartheid. This initiative helped to focus attention on the issue of racial injustice in South Africa within the international business by promoting criteria for socially responsible investment practices. The Sullivan principles are even credited to have contributed to the end of apartheid. Both the idea of financial accounting and the Sullivan principles have been of considerable importance in the process of institutionalization because they created a common framework of reference under which adversarial standpoints could be integrated into a shared practical vision. Shortly after the public announcement of the Valdez principles, coalition members engaged in an intense dialogue with corporations in order to test their willingness to adopt the principles and commit themselves to periodical reporting. But although the Aveda Corporation became the first signatory to the Valdez principles on November 22, 1989 (CERES 1999b), it took another three years to institutionalize the cooperation with a wide range of corporate actors. After several rounds of talks with companies the principles were amended and renamed in 1992. Sunoco became the first Fortune 500 Company to endorse the CERES principles in February 1993, General Motors (GM) followed in 1994. Several contextual factors can be identified that affected the early process of institutionalization between investors, advocacy groups and corporations. First, environmental catastrophes, especially the Exxon Valdez incident, have triggered widespread public concern about the environmental integrity of major companies. Second, the beginning information revolution and increasing business activities on the global level radically changed both the importance and availability of information. As Joan Bavaria recalls in retrospective, this need [for principles and reporting] arose just as an information revolution was starting to race around the world. We sensed that this was a real revolution, with implications for our economy, environment, and culture as sweeping as those that accompanied the agricultural revolution or the industrial revolution (CERES 1998, 2). As a third contextual factor, the rhetorical as well as practical support that the Clinton administration gave to cooperative approaches, voluntary initiatives, and partnership concepts seemed to have played a role. When CERES began to get more institutionalized, neither the investment community and the environmental organization nor the endorsing companies knew exactly what would be the outcome out of that process in terms of joint gains and mutual benefits. This does clearly contradict standard transaction cost explanations for cooperation. A good example in case is the engagement with General Motors (GM), the world s largest automobile corporation. The CERES performance review of GM, conducted in 2001 and covering the first five years of institutional cooperation, notes: 13

PHILIPP PATTBERG The world s largest corporation was joining hands with a relatively unfamiliar, yet potentially very influential, coalition of environmental groups and socially responsible investors. The outcomes were uncertain, and there were many skeptics on both sides. [ ] Together GM and CE- RES hoped to harvest potential benefits in admittedly unknown and probably rough terrain (CERES 2002a, 5). What has been more important than a clear perception of future gains were four distinct organizational resources available in the process of institutionalization: the ability to frame the problem in a way that is meaningful to other stakeholders, the information necessary to solve it, the impact to make an actual difference in the given issue area, and the credibility to construct a joint solution acceptable to all the participants. Social investors were able to address the problem of corporate environmental performance because they did not only represent social visions, but substantial capital interests as well. Through filing shareholder petitions they made companies aware of the growing demand for environmental disclosure. But investors needed the support of non-partisan environmental organizations to offer corporations the reputation benefit and added value necessary to engage them in cooperation. The companies on their part provided the information requested by investors and the commitment envisaged by the NGOs to make a real difference on the ground. In sum, the CERES case confirms the importance of private demand for a certain regulatory framework in the absence of appropriate governmental or international responses. A distinct problem-structure creates demand from different sides of the stakeholder spectrum. What seems important is that one actor holds the leverage to make the problem a business issue, in this case the social investors through the intense use of shareholder petitions. Furthermore, ideas seem to matter in allowing dissimilar actors to agree on a mutual frame of reference as the basis for future action. Although the environmental community did reject the approach in the very beginning, the idea of environmental principles coupled with standardized reporting provided a common point of reference that was used as a strong longterm vision to bridge existing differences. The macro-level of conditions plays a twofold role in the case. First, contextual factors such as the Exxon Valdez catastrophe provided an additional impulse for successful private regulation; second, macro-shifts in the economic realm drove corporate actors to the forefront of public attention. What could not be confirmed was a simple power or interest-based explanation. What rather seem to be influential are available organizational resources that can be exchanged to create a zone of joint gains. Although companies did achieve gains such as positive brand reputation, the initial cooperation process was marked by uncertainty with regard to the possible outcome. What seems to be of further importance is the existence of an institutional entrepreneur, a committed individual generating momentum for the respective idea, similar to the concept of a norm entrepreneur as discussed by Finnemore and Sikkink. These findings indicate that an integrated 14

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF PRIVATE GOVERNANCE model, combining micro- and macro-structures, is better equipped to understand the emergence of private regulatory institutions than a single-factor account. CERTIFYING SUSTAINABILITY: THE FOREST STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL The Forest Stewardship Council was founded in 1993 by a general assembly of interested parties in Toronto, Canada. Among the 126 participants from 26 countries were concerned individuals and representatives from a wide range of organizations, including environmental NGOs, retailers, trade unions, and indigenous interest groups. Although consultations among forest producers, retailers, and environmental and social interest groups had been going on since 1990, it was not until 1994 that the founding members of FSC agreed upon the FSC Standards and Principles, the substantive basis of FSC s work with regards to definition and operationalization of sustainable forestry (FSC). The idea behind the FSC is to certify forest management operations according to a detailed standard. Certification and continual verification of commitment is carried out by independent certification organizations that are accredited by the FSC according to specific rules. In contrast to CERES, being a network of coalition members and endorsing companies, the FSC is constituted as a membership organization. The General Assembly (GA), a tripartite body that represents business, social, and environmental interests within three chambers, governs the FSC. The GA elects a board of directors that mirrors the principal governance structure. Each chamber sends three members to the board for a three-year term. The board decides on all issues of major importance, from approving national representatives and initiatives of the FSC, to allocating the annual budget, to approving new standards. The operational work of the FSC is handled by the FSC international secretariat located in Bonn, Germany, and supervised by an Executive Director who is appointed by the board. Whereas the day to day operations of the FSC are in the responsibility of the international secretariat and its executive director, and questions of major importance are decided by the board of directors, only the general assembly is authorized to change the fundamental standards and principles as well as the statutes of the FSC. Currently, the FSC incorporates about 600 individual and organizational members, 36 national initiatives, and 13 independent certification organizations within its network. Member organizations include large economic actors such as IKEA, The Home Depot, and B&Q, national and international environmental advocacy groups, for example Greenpeace, the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), and Friends of the Earth, and a wide range of social advocacy groups, including the German trade union IG Bau and indigenous campaigns within their scope. As a private regulatory institution, the FSC produces three different basic types of standards. First, global forest management standards that form the basis for national and regional standards development; second, chain of custody standards prescribing detailed rules along the production chain; and third, standards for accreditation. 9 The standards are 15

PHILIPP PATTBERG developed and drafted by the standards and policies unit within the international secretariat and later approved by the board of directors. To date, more than 47 million hectares of forests worldwide are certified according to FSC standards, amounting to 5% of trade in forests products. From 1996 until 2004 the FSC has issued 4000 certificates, both for forest management and chain of custody. In March 1990, a group of timber users, traders, and representatives of social and environmental organizations convened in California to discuss the need for a credible system for identifying well-managed forests as an acceptable resource of forest products (FSC and WWF-Germany, 6). One year later, WWF had teamed up with major retailers in the UK to form the UK Forest and Trade Network. In October 1993, the FSC held its first general assembly after a 18 month intense consultation period in ten countries, including the US, Canada, Sweden, and Peru. Several distinct features characterize the problem-structure that underlay this process of institutionalization. Media-coverage on tropical deforestation and related social issues such as the Amazonian rubber tappers protest against illegal logging and the subsequent investment in cattle quickly turned the word tropical timber into a negative synonym for environmental degradation and human exploitation. Buying mahogany furniture had become a critical issue among northern consumers by the late 1980s. With environmental organizations organizing boycotts against tropical timber retailers, and some governments discussing the possibility of banning timber import, companies were looking for new ways to protect their profits. Major business players quickly realized that in fact they could not account for the origin and nature of their raw materials. This created a need for transparent product labels, which were nonexistent at that time. Some NGOs on their part were unhappy with the debate focusing only on timber boycott, which especially WWF saw as contra-productive. Instead, WWF-UK conducted a seminar on the forest problem, entitled Forests Are Your Business, resulting in the WWF 95 group. Ten major do-it-yourself and furniture companies agreed to phase out, by 1995, the purchase and sale of non-sustainable wood and wood-products (Bendell and Murphy, 70). The competing needs of the major stakeholders became evident at that point in time. An increasingly competitive global market for timber products drove large multinational corporations while at the same time brand reputation became a major topic of concern. Small forest owners wanted their share of the market but maintain independence, communities relied on forests to finance community infrastructure, indigenous people demanded the recognition of fundamental rights while workers sought to secure employment and fundamental labor standards. Environmental organizations on their term focused on protecting and preserving the integrity of the forest ecosystems. Around the same time, the ongoing negotiations about an international agreement on the world s forest raised expectations among NGOs and corporations for a credible solution to their problems. Although the first international response to the problem of deforestation, 16